get_config_example

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns example configuration content and explanations, which is useful, but it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, output formatting, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant details. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose and output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one required enum parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return content ('example TOML configuration with explanations') sufficiently for a caller to understand what to expect. It lacks sibling routing and deeper behavior but is complete enough for a simple config-example retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single enum parameter. The description adds the phrase 'specific section' which maps to the config_type enum, but it does not clarify what each enum value should produce or how to choose among them. This is baseline value over an already-complete schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: example TOML configuration with explanations for a specific section. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_renderer_file or get_setup_guide, since those deal with renderer files and setup guides rather than TOML configuration examples.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_starter_template or valdate_toml_config. The description implies use when an example config is needed, but it does not state exclusions or provide routing criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.